PDA

View Full Version : bridge length



short_bridge
06-05-2005, 11:10 AM
hello! i'm jason from manila, and i hope we'll all be friends here in this forum.

i was playing in a tournament two days ago when a very good player (an A player) saw me trying to draw the rock with my short bridge (about 7-8 inches), which fell way short of position. he took me aside and told me that in order to be a good player, you need to have a long bridge (approx 11.5-15 inches).

his reasoning was the longer bridge allows you to see the ball better when aiming and also it adds more power to your stroke.

how true is this info? i mean is there any difference hitting the rock 20 mph for a draw shot with a short bridge than a longer bridge? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

pooltchr
06-05-2005, 03:51 PM
I would think you would give up a lot of accuracy with a bridge that long.
Steve

sneakypapi
06-05-2005, 07:33 PM
Interesting the other day I was experimenting with my bridge length. When I shortened the length my accuracy did go up. I notice on a longer bridge length my stroke will waver a little on practice strokes. When I decide to draw I will lengthen the stroke to compensate for it. Some players especially Philippino players have long strokes, that is their style and they have grown accustomed to it. I would say practice what is best for you and then decide what is the best length. The stroke is one of the hardest parts to develop perfectly (IMO), I am always experimenting with it myself.

poolturtle
06-05-2005, 07:48 PM
It's been my experience that you give up accuracy with a longer bridge.

Of course, with practice, you could learn to control that.

Although I haven't specifically worked on it, my draw stroke itself doesn't seem to be affected by the bridge length that much. The length varies depending on the shot (across the table, over balls, etc.), but as a rule, I try to keep the bridge short for control purposes.

As far as I can tell, assuming you have equal cue control for both a long and short bridge, the effect should be the same.

What matters the most is hitting the cue ball in the correct spot and a good follow thru.

One interesting tip I did see on ESPN once: On draw shots where the cue ball and object ball are close together, using a longer bridge helps eliminate the possibility of a double hit on the cue ball.

Fran Crimi
06-05-2005, 09:46 PM
Hi Jason,

Welcome to the CCB. I think you were given some good advice, but I also think it's a little more complicated than that. I've noticed that players who stand low tend to have longer bridge lengths because they see the line of the shot better from that distance and height.

However, there are times when a shorter bridge length does work better, as in the case of short shots, like a "nip-draw" shot where the balls are closer together and you want to quick-draw the cue ball back. In that case, just stand a little higher and you'll see the shot just as well.

As the 'A' player pointed out to you, standing lower with a longer bridge length does work well for long power shots. You see that all the time with 9-ball players.

I watched many 14.1 players have trouble making the transition from straight pool to 9 ball because they had short bridge lengths (and stood higher) and had a difficult time with the big shots that come up in 9 ball so often.

I recommend that you use whatever bridge length is required for your shot, but make sure you adjust your height at the table accordingly. You have to be able to see the shot in order to make it. As to what bridge lengths for what shots, I'd start with longer bridge lengths for longer shots and shorten it up for the short ones.

Fran

tateuts
06-05-2005, 10:17 PM
Here's my thinking on it. Bridge length and stroke length are two different issues. You can have a long bridge and a short stroke. You can have a long bridge and a long stroke. But if you have a short bridge you can only have a short stroke.

What the player was trying to tell you is that there are times when you need to summon some power, and it's much easier to do it smoothly with a longer bridge.

I think you can see most pro players go to a longer bridge. It gives them the option of using a fuller stroke and also maybe lets them see the shot a little better.

It's good to experiment with different bridge lengths and different bridges, like an open bridge, to give you the experience to choose the set-up that allows your game to be...well, your game.

Chris

Sid_Vicious
06-06-2005, 05:38 AM
I've been watching for stroke length methods within the WPBA television combatants and noticed most all of them seems to extend the bridge length in all cases. Lee, when shooting over the rail for a side pocket shot will slide the bridge hand almost off of the rail in an effort to maximize bridge length, even when the ball is not extremely close to the rail. The stroke is not "big" in all cases, short many times, but the professionals do seem to extend their lengths. If the really proficient players do it, it must mean something...sid

JimS
06-06-2005, 05:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Hi Jason,

Welcome to the CCB. I think you were given some good advice, but I also think it's a little more complicated than that. I've noticed that players who stand low tend to have longer bridge lengths because they see the line of the shot better from that distance and height.

However, there are times when a shorter bridge length does work better, as in the case of short shots, like a "nip-draw" shot where the balls are closer together and you want to quick-draw the cue ball back. In that case, just stand a little higher and you'll see the shot just as well.

As the 'A' player pointed out to you, standing lower with a longer bridge length does work well for long power shots. You see that all the time with 9-ball players.

I watched many 14.1 players have trouble making the transition from straight pool to 9 ball because they had short bridge lengths (and stood higher) and had a difficult time with the big shots that come up in 9 ball so often.

I recommend that you use whatever bridge length is required for your shot, but make sure you adjust your height at the table accordingly. You have to be able to see the shot in order to make it. As to what bridge lengths for what shots, I'd start with longer bridge lengths for longer shots and shorten it up for the short ones.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks Fran! I'd been kinda giving myself a bit of hell for having reverted to a longer bridge after having found that it worked well for me (I do play with my chin on the cue). I felt almost guilty using the long bridge because every time the topic came up here on the ccb the word was to play with a 8" bridge.

I do vary mine as you suggested and I do like the long bridge (about 10 to 11")with my low stance on long shots. I did notice also that when I went to see Mark Wilson, during his assessment of my fundamentals, he didn't mention anything about my long bridge length although he did make some other changes. (straighten out the bridge arm, get the butt over my toes not the instep, get the strokeing elbow out away from my body and move the grip hand back toward the butt of the cue)

Having your "permission" to use the longer bridge gives me some measure of increased confidence.

Fran Crimi
06-06-2005, 06:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote poolturtle:</font><hr>
One interesting tip I did see on ESPN once: On draw shots where the cue ball and object ball are close together, using a longer bridge helps eliminate the possibility of a double hit on the cue ball. <hr /></blockquote>


I'd have to see the film clip to see what they were trying to accomplish, but as a general rule, I think that's bad advice. Do you remember who said that? I'd like to ask them about it.

Fran

Fran Crimi
06-06-2005, 07:18 AM
Jim,

Sounds like Mark gave you some GREAT tips. I've never seen him teach but based the things I've heard that he's said ad different times, my respect for him keeps growing.

There's a lot of advice floating around out there that I call 'folklore.' It's based in truth but some important details get left out as the information gets passed around, and it becomes misleading. For example, old-timers will tell you that a short bridge length is the way to go, but it worked for them because they stood taller at the table, or because they played strictly 14.1.

Over time, I've learned to question the source of the advice I'm given and try to put it in perspective.

Fran

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 07:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>I've noticed that players who stand low tend to have longer bridge lengths because they see the line of the shot better from that distance and height.<hr /></blockquote>
Fran,

If one is using an open bridge, isn't the line of sight perfectly visible from any height? (Note: I believe, and I think most people agree, that it is easier to aim more accurately with a low stance). Also, why do you think a longer bridge helps one see the line of sight better, assuming an open bridge? In general, I think the bridge length should be as short a possible. Length makes power easier, and some people might prefer a longer stroke, but I see no advantages to extra length. In fact, I only see disadvantages (e.g., greater chance for missing the desired cue ball contact point). But maybe I'm missing something. Please advise.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 09:50 AM
In anybody is interested, I have an analysis concerning this on my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/pool/) (see TP A.10 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-10.pdf)). It shows how when you increase bridge length, the cue ball contact point error increases. This can create unwanted English, which can result in unwanted deflection (squirt), curve (swerve), and throw. See the pertinent English topics on my thread links page (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html) for more information.

Regards,
Dr. Dave

wolfdancer
06-06-2005, 10:17 AM
"Over time, I've learned to question the source of the advice I'm given....."
This you can take as "Gospel", 'cause it's from me.
My pool "hero", Efran Reyes, has what....a 42" bridge? as do most of the Phillippino players of note.
However, for me, the best thing I have ever done, besides trading in my Walmart, Steve Miz cue for some pool chalk...the best thing was to shorten my bridge length.
I have improved my draw, and with better accuracy....and surprisingly, a better break.
Maybe I jes got me some, "fast twitch" muscles, and they're maybe all twitched out in just a few inches...I dunno, but my game has picked up, I run more tables, and win my share of tournaments, albeit, on 8 ft'rs...the norm up here

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>My pool "hero", Efran Reyes, has what....a 42" bridge? as do most of the Phillippino players of note.
However, for me, the best thing I have ever done, besides trading in my Walmart, Steve Miz cue for some pool chalk...the best thing was to shorten my bridge length.
I have improved my draw, and with better accuracy....and surprisingly, a better break.<hr /></blockquote>
I've also improved my accuracy with a shorter bridge. I'm not sure if it's because of the increase in contact point accuracy (see my other posting (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=195954&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=)) or because a shorter stroke is more comfortable for me ... but it seems to work.

As a counter example to Efran (although Efran is in a class by himself), check out Julie Kelley's stroke. She has one of the shortest bridge lengths around, with excellent accuracy (like most past snooker players). She uses a very short bridge even on her power shots.

Regards,
Dave

wolfdancer
06-06-2005, 11:08 AM
Dr. Dave, while i was kidding a bit about the fast twitch muscles....With a longer bridge, I may have been decelerating, by the time the cue made contact...I think the increased length of my draw shots, and the increase in power on my breaks,would tend to verify that conclusion.
It might be an interesting experiment to take several
players, have them hit power shots using varied bridge lengths, and check the results. Maybe there is an optimum length for an each individual's stroke?
I'll check out the vids that you referred to, thanks..jd

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 11:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>With a longer bridge, I may have been decelerating by the time the cue made contact<hr /></blockquote>
I don't think that is likely, because to decelerate you would need to reverse the force direction on the cue stick (i.e., start pulling back). Instead, did you mean you stopped accelerating? If you cease to exert forward force during the stroke, the stick would cease to accelerate but maintain constant speed before impact (unless you pull back with force before contact). So you probably weren't losing speed during the longer stroke. But maybe something else in your stroke mechanics is coming into play with the shorter stroke allowing you to get more power. The shorter stroke also probably increases your accuracy, which would give you more "effective power" (especially on the break).

[I hope this "ceasing to accelerate" vs. "decelerate" discussion doesn't start a whole new debate on terminology (as with "pause" and "stop"). I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>Maybe there is an optimum length for an each individual's stroke?<hr /></blockquote>
I'm with you on this one; although I still think that, in general, most players should try to keep the bridge length as short as is comfortable for each shot.

Regards,
Dave

Fran Crimi
06-06-2005, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
If one is using an open bridge, isn't the line of sight perfectly visible from any height? (Note: I believe, and I think most people agree, that it is easier to aim more accurately with a low stance). Also, why do you think a longer bridge helps one see the line of sight better, assuming an open bridge? In general, I think the bridge length should be as short a possible. Length makes power easier, and some people might prefer a longer stroke, but I see no advantages to extra length. In fact, I only see disadvantages (e.g., greater chance for missing the desired cue ball contact point). But maybe I'm missing something. Please advise.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Dr. Dave,

Before forming your opinion on which is better, I think it would be a good idea to first review some facts.

1. Most of the top pros today have fairly long to long bridge lengths.

2. The game that's played on tour is 9 ball, requiring frequently shooting long shots.

3. Snooker players (who use open bridges when shooting shooker) tend to stand low, with long bridge lengths.

4. Back when 14.1 was the pro competition game, most players (particularly those who didn't play 9 ball) stood higher at the table and used shorter bridge lengths.

5. Most(?)or at least many of the pros today who have long bridge lengths, don't bring their cues all the way back to their bridge hands on every shot.

If you look at bridge length strictly in terms of pivot and contact points, sure, you would reach the conclusion that shorter is better, however, there must be something else going on that warrants looking into, since so many pros do use longer bridge lengths. If it's not about accuracy, and not always about power, then what is it about?

My guess is that it about visual and feel.

Fran

Fred Agnir
06-06-2005, 11:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>With a longer bridge, I may have been decelerating by the time the cue made contact<hr /></blockquote>
I don't think that is likely, because to decelerate you would need to reverse the force direction on the cue stick (i.e., start pulling back). <hr /></blockquote>I think if you hit the cueball when your arm is past vertical, then the speed of the stick forward (x direction) has decreased from the maximum speed. Therefore, I think the cuestick in the x direction is decelerating once you get past vertical.

That's not what Wolfdancer was describing, however.

Fred

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 12:51 PM
Fran,

Excellent summary! However, given all of these facts, I'm still not convinced that a longer bridge is better. I currently "believe" that for most players, and for shots not requiring power, a shorter bridge is better. Now, as far as the pros go, I don't think it matters much geometrically how long their bridges are, because their strokes are so true, reliable, and repeatable that the length has very little effect on accuracy.

I still don't understand what you mean by a longer bridge maybe being better in a "visual" way. Could you explain that more?

I agree with you about the "feel" part. People need to do what feels right. If a longer bridge and/or longer stroke feel and work better for an individual, then there is no argument. I just like to better understand what is considered recommended technique (e.g., for average to intermediate players) and why.

Respectfully,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Before forming your opinion on which is better, I think it would be a good idea to first review some facts.

1. Most of the top pros today have fairly long to long bridge lengths.

2. The game that's played on tour is 9 ball, requiring frequently shooting long shots.

3. Snooker players (who use open bridges when shooting shooker) tend to stand low, with long bridge lengths.

4. Back when 14.1 was the pro competition game, most players (particularly those who didn't play 9 ball) stood higher at the table and used shorter bridge lengths.

5. Most(?)or at least many of the pros today who have long bridge lengths, don't bring their cues all the way back to their bridge hands on every shot.

If you look at bridge length strictly in terms of pivot and contact points, sure, you would reach the conclusion that shorter is better, however, there must be something else going on that warrants looking into, since so many pros do use longer bridge lengths. If it's not about accuracy, and not always about power, then what is it about?

My guess is that it about visual and feel.<hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 01:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>I think if you hit the cueball when your arm is past vertical, then the speed of the stick forward (x direction) has decreased from the maximum speed. Therefore, I think the cuestick in the x direction is decelerating once you get past vertical.<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

What is your basis for this statement? Also, are you assuming a pendulum stroke (with little or no elbow drop)? I would agree that your statement is true for a pendulum stroke if the forearm is well past vertical, but the human arm is certainly capable of delivering forward force past the vertical position (even without late wrist action or elbow drop).

Respectfully,
Dave

Fred Agnir
06-06-2005, 01:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>I think if you hit the cueball when your arm is past vertical, then the speed of the stick forward (x direction) has decreased from the maximum speed. Therefore, I think the cuestick in the x direction is decelerating once you get past vertical.<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

What is your basis for this statement? Also, are you assuming a pendulum stroke (with little or no elbow drop)? I would agree that your statement is true for a pendulum stroke if the forearm is well past vertical, but the human arm is certainly capable of delivering forward force past the vertical position (even without late wrist action or elbow drop).

Respectfully,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

My goodness. I think if you left your part of the post in, then there wouldn't be a need for circular debate.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is likely, because to decelerate you would need to reverse the force direction on the cue stick (i.e., start pulling back). <hr /></blockquote>

To which I responded. You don't need to start pulling back to decelerate. I believe Mr. Jewett observed deceleration pryor to impact by the human testers in the Jacksonvilled Experiment. That is, deceleration is a likely proposition.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/821b8d9a33ab1bda?dmode=source&amp;hl=en

Fred

wolfdancer
06-06-2005, 01:24 PM
I actually meant "stop accelerating" as opposed to "decelerating'...
Ya gotta cut us some terminalogy slack, what confused physics,with phys. ed.
as I understand it, the cueball would ideally be contacted just before peak acceleration?
Or as descates stated:
" there is a fixed amount of momentum in the universe, because it is conserved during interactions (momentum being mass times velocity, mv). From his studies of collisions, he concluded that changes in motion are produced by force, and force is quantitated in proportion to momentum divided by time (F = mv/t).
Don't ask me to explain what I just wrote....it sounded pretty good though when i read it.

Fran Crimi
06-06-2005, 01:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Fran,

Excellent summary! However, given all of these facts, I'm still not convinced that a longer bridge is better. I currently "believe" that for most players, and for shots not requiring power, a shorter bridge is better. Now, as far as the pros go, I don't think it matters much geometrically how long their bridges are, because their strokes are so true, reliable, and repeatable that the length has very little effect on accuracy.

I still don't understand what you mean by a longer bridge maybe being better in a "visual" way. Could you explain that more?

I agree with you about the "feel" part. People need to do what feels right. If a longer bridge and/or longer stroke feel and work better for an individual, then there is no argument. I just like to better understand what is considered recommended technique (e.g., for average to intermediate players) and why.

Respectfully,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Before forming your opinion on which is better, I think it would be a good idea to first review some facts.

1. Most of the top pros today have fairly long to long bridge lengths.

2. The game that's played on tour is 9 ball, requiring frequently shooting long shots.

3. Snooker players (who use open bridges when shooting shooker) tend to stand low, with long bridge lengths.

4. Back when 14.1 was the pro competition game, most players (particularly those who didn't play 9 ball) stood higher at the table and used shorter bridge lengths.

5. Most(?)or at least many of the pros today who have long bridge lengths, don't bring their cues all the way back to their bridge hands on every shot.

If you look at bridge length strictly in terms of pivot and contact points, sure, you would reach the conclusion that shorter is better, however, there must be something else going on that warrants looking into, since so many pros do use longer bridge lengths. If it's not about accuracy, and not always about power, then what is it about?

My guess is that it about visual and feel.<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Well, I'm not sure that I know the answer. My guess is that it's a depth perception issue, as in optimally seeing the space between the cb and ob.

I wouldn't rule out the pros as examples just because they stroke straighter than the rest. Given the choice, they've chosen to stand farther back. There's a reason for that.

Try thinking of it through a process of elimination. How many top players do we know who stand low and have short bridge lengths at all times? I'm sure they're out there but I can quickly make a long list of those who are the opposite.

No player shoots perfectly straight all the time. Why then wouldn't the pros want to maximize their percentages of hitting the desired contact point at all times by shortening their bridge lengths? Could they all be making the same mistake, including snooker players?

Fran

Fred Agnir
06-06-2005, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> as I understand it, the cueball would ideally be contacted just before peak acceleration? <hr /></blockquote>I would say that you would want nearly zero acceleration and peak velocity.

Fred

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 01:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>You wrote:
I don't think that is likely, because to decelerate you would need to reverse the force direction on the cue stick (i.e., start pulling back).

To which I responded. You don't need to start pulling back to decelerate. I believe Mr. Jewett observed deceleration pryor to impact by the human testers in the Jacksonvilled Experiment. That is, deceleration is a likely proposition.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/821b8d9a33ab1bda?dmode=source&amp;hl=en
<hr /></blockquote>
Maybe Bob can report more info on this. I read the posting at the link you provided and I read copies of Bob's articles from the April'09 and June'99 issues of BD, and I saw nothing about deceleration before impact and past vertical. Also, I would be curious to know if the test results were for power shots or not (and whether there was wrist action and/or elbow drop or not). I still think it is easy to accelerate (or at least not slow the cue stick) past the vertical forearm position. I'll try various types of strokes with various people the next time I film some high-speed video (although, this is a low priority item because it really doesn't matter whether or not the speed decreases a little past vertical because its not recommended to make contact much past vertical anyway.)

Regards,
Dave

wolfdancer
06-06-2005, 01:52 PM
I believe that you and doc dave, are on the same page,arguing a moot point. I believe you are both righthttp://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3b1.gif

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3b2.gif

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 01:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I actually meant "stop accelerating" as opposed to "decelerating'...
Ya gotta cut us some terminalogy slack
...
as I understand it, the cueball would ideally be contacted just before peak acceleration?<hr /></blockquote>
For a power shot, peak "speed" is desirable (the "acceleration" is actually zero at peak "speed"), but I think I know what you meant. I hope you don't mind my terminology policing too much. I'm just very careful about word usage because I've written books. And believe me, when you misuse a word in a book, you hear about it ... a lot!

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 02:04 PM
Fran,

Your points are well taken. Thanks.

I will certainly start noticing bridge length a lot more closely on TV over the next few months. The only pro for which I've noticed extremely short bridge length so far is Julie Kelley, but I haven't really been looking for this.

Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Fran,

Excellent summary! However, given all of these facts, I'm still not convinced that a longer bridge is better. I currently "believe" that for most players, and for shots not requiring power, a shorter bridge is better. Now, as far as the pros go, I don't think it matters much geometrically how long their bridges are, because their strokes are so true, reliable, and repeatable that the length has very little effect on accuracy.

I still don't understand what you mean by a longer bridge maybe being better in a "visual" way. Could you explain that more?

I agree with you about the "feel" part. People need to do what feels right. If a longer bridge and/or longer stroke feel and work better for an individual, then there is no argument. I just like to better understand what is considered recommended technique (e.g., for average to intermediate players) and why.

Respectfully,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Before forming your opinion on which is better, I think it would be a good idea to first review some facts.

1. Most of the top pros today have fairly long to long bridge lengths.

2. The game that's played on tour is 9 ball, requiring frequently shooting long shots.

3. Snooker players (who use open bridges when shooting shooker) tend to stand low, with long bridge lengths.

4. Back when 14.1 was the pro competition game, most players (particularly those who didn't play 9 ball) stood higher at the table and used shorter bridge lengths.

5. Most(?)or at least many of the pros today who have long bridge lengths, don't bring their cues all the way back to their bridge hands on every shot.

If you look at bridge length strictly in terms of pivot and contact points, sure, you would reach the conclusion that shorter is better, however, there must be something else going on that warrants looking into, since so many pros do use longer bridge lengths. If it's not about accuracy, and not always about power, then what is it about?

My guess is that it about visual and feel.<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Well, I'm not sure that I know the answer. My guess is that it's a depth perception issue, as in optimally seeing the space between the cb and ob.

I wouldn't rule out the pros as examples just because they stroke straighter than the rest. Given the choice, they've chosen to stand farther back. There's a reason for that.

Try thinking of it through a process of elimination. How many top players do we know who stand low and have short bridge lengths at all times? I'm sure they're out there but I can quickly make a long list of those who are the opposite.

No player shoots perfectly straight all the time. Why then wouldn't the pros want to maximize their percentages of hitting the desired contact point at all times by shortening their bridge lengths? Could they all be making the same mistake, including snooker players?

Fran
<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
06-06-2005, 02:06 PM
From a non-tech standpoint....at some point the cue speed will begin to slow down, regardless of whether it has hit an O.B. or not.While it would be likely that this deceleration point would occur at a point past a vertical position for the lower arm.....there is something else to consider....since muscular movement is controlled by electrical impulses...maybe the duration of those impulses varies with individuals.
I remember reading where Rocky Marciano could knock a man out with a 12" punch. Anybody who's seen him fight, saw him take several shots while he worked his way inside the other guy's punching range. Would his punch have been more, or less effective, at a longer range?
The players on the Champion's tour have gone to a shorter, more compact swing, without a proportionate loss of distance.

wolfdancer
06-06-2005, 02:18 PM
I actually appreciate being made aware of a writing faux pas.
If I stop repeating them, then people can honestly say to me
"you ain't as dumb as you look"

dr_dave
06-06-2005, 02:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I still don't understand what you mean by a longer bridge maybe being better in a "visual" way. Could you explain that more?<hr /></blockquote>
Well, I'm not sure that I know the answer. My guess is that it's a depth perception issue, as in optimally seeing the space between the cb and ob.

I wouldn't rule out the pros as examples just because they stroke straighter than the rest. Given the choice, they've chosen to stand farther back. There's a reason for that.<hr /></blockquote>
I've read other comments on depth perception and I still don't understand how it is relevant. I once met an awesome pool player who was blind in one eye (i.e., not much depth perception there), and he was deadly accurate. Ever since then, I've wondered if depth perception is really important. Logically, I think it should not be important, because aiming involves visualizing a straight line from the CB to the OB (or more precisely, the desired ghost ball center). It does not matter how far away the OB is, the line is still the same. How does depth perception help with visualizing the aiming line? And wouldn't depth perception be better if you were closer to the balls and not farther away? Actually, by being farther away, maybe there is less depth perception (and more importantly, less parallax). Is that why the pros stand farther back? (I haven't actually noticed that they do, but I will be looking for that also.) A better solution might be to wear a patch over one eye. (I am partly joking but party serious here.) Then the whole dominant eye issue (and parallax) will be a moot point. Maybe I'll try that later today. Does one really need depth perception in pool?

Now, depth perception might help with "seeing the angle" of the shot (i.e., seeing the line from the OB to the pocket), but a one-eyed person could simply walk behind the OB to first visualize this line to establish the necessary aiming line. But I can see how depth perception might help a player "see" both the aiming line (from the CB to the OB) and the impact line (from the OB to the target pocket) from the stance, provided the stance is high enough. Now I'm really confused. Isn't a low stance better for aiming line accuracy? And should we be trying to "see" the impact line while in the stance? I don't think so.

I know you might not have the answers, but maybe you or others have some insight to share. Has anybody tried the eye patch idea?

Thanks again,
Dave

sneakypapi
06-06-2005, 05:27 PM
Actually, I think I remember that tip, either Alan Hopkins or Ewa gave it, but Im pretty sure it was Hopkins. But I am almost certain he said a "SHORT" bridge and a quick motion. I think he was saying where on the cue to hit it not stressing bridge length. Also, the varying of the distance between the cue and the object ball (frozen and not frozen).

poolturtle
06-06-2005, 06:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote poolturtle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One interesting tip I did see on ESPN once: On draw shots where the cue ball and object ball are close together, using a longer bridge helps eliminate the possibility of a double hit on the cue ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I'd have to see the film clip to see what they were trying to accomplish, but as a general rule, I think that's bad advice. Do you remember who said that? I'd like to ask them about it.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

I don't remember who it was. It's been a while since I saw it. Besides, I'm horrible with names. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

It was just one of those segments in televised matches where they show you some shot or a certain tip to help improve your game.

I think it was during a trick shot magic competition.

What they were talking about was when the balls were close enough to where a full follow thru would cause you to double hit the cue ball....when the cue ball contacted the object ball and stopped before drawing back, your cue tip would hit the ball again because of the full follow thru.

The point they made was that backing up the bridge hand would allow you to get a full follow thru (which everything I've heard and read says is essential for a good draw stroke) but becuase you started from further back, the end of the stroke wouldn't go as far "downtable" relative to a closer set bridge, thus eliminating the chance of a double hit foul on the cue ball.

Hope that description helped a little. I know the guy's face, so if I catch him again on TV, I'll get his name and let you know.

ccrider
06-06-2005, 08:18 PM
shorter bridge gives you more accuracy and success.

Qtec
06-07-2005, 03:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Logically, I think it should not be important, because aiming involves visualizing a straight line from the CB to the OB (or more precisely, the desired ghost ball center). <font color="blue"> Dave, doesnt the aiming line extend THROUGH the OB and the QB? </font color> It does not matter how far away the OB is, the line is still the same. How does depth perception help with visualizing the aiming line? <hr /></blockquote>

The difference between short and long bridge is that the EYES are further away from the QB when you play with a longer bridge. This means that when you focus on the QB or OB, you will see more of the shaft [ie. a longer line ] and therefor its easier to line up the cue on the line on the shot.
All the other benefits from the longer bridge, Fran has already mentioned.

Qtec

Qtec
06-07-2005, 04:07 AM
I've read other comments on depth perception and I still don't understand how it is relevant. I once met an awesome pool player who was blind in one eye (i.e., not much depth perception there), and he was deadly accurate. Ever since then, I've wondered if depth perception is really important. <font color="blue"> I dont think it is, at least not for aiming purposes. </font color> Logically, I think it should not be important, because aiming involves visualizing a straight line from the CB to the OB (or more precisely, the desired ghost ball center). It does not matter how far away the OB is, the line is still the same. How does depth perception help with visualizing the aiming line? And wouldn't depth perception be better if you were closer to the balls and not farther away? <font color="blue"> Yes. </font color> Actually, by being farther away, maybe there is less depth perception <font color="blue"> Yes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color> (and more importantly, less parallax). Is that why the pros stand farther back? (I haven't actually noticed that they do, but I will be looking for that also.) A better solution might be to wear a patch over one eye. (I am partly joking but party serious here.) Then the whole dominant eye issue (and parallax) will be a moot point. <font color="blue"> That all depends on the question. </font color> Maybe I'll try that later today. Does one really need depth perception in pool? <font color="blue"> No, but it does help. </font color>

Now, depth perception might help with "seeing the angle" of the shot (i.e., seeing the line from the OB to the pocket), but a one-eyed person could simply walk behind the OB to first visualize this line to establish the necessary aiming line. But I can see how depth perception might help a player "see" both the aiming line (from the CB to the OB) and the impact line (from the OB to the target pocket) from the stance, provided the stance is high enough. Now I'm really confused. Isn't a low stance better for aiming line accuracy? <font color="blue">Yes. </font color> And should we be trying to "see" the impact line while in the stance? I don't think so. <font color="blue"> Dave, the most easily missed shots are the ones when you shoot into a blind pocket. ie, you cant see the 'impact line'because the pocket is out of sight.In theory, we dont need to see the impact line, but in reality, we all use it to check that we are hitting the right spot on the OB. </font color>

I know you might not have the answers, but maybe you or others have some insight to share. Has anybody tried the eye patch idea?

Thanks again,
Dave





Qtec

JimS
06-07-2005, 04:39 AM
When playing 9 ball I seldom use an open bridge. There are so many long shots and/or shots which require some power component, like strong follow or draw, that I've become habituated to the TIGHT closed loop and long bridge .... most of the time.

I doubt there's any sense in arguing which is "best", unless teaching a beginner. Too many variables and different strokes and it all boils down to opinion and personal preference that probably can't be documented one way or the other.

It seems to me that the bottom line is that it's "best" to be creative and adjust for each shot with preference going to the option with the least propensity for error.

Fred Agnir
06-07-2005, 07:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I still think it is easy to accelerate (or at least not slow the cue stick) past the vertical forearm position. <hr /></blockquote>Dr. Dave, I will now have to accuse of either poor reading comprehension or not reading your own post. Whether or not you think it is easy to accelerate past the vertical forearm position was not the point of contention. Therefore, bringing it up not only confuses the original contention, your point is moot.

That being said, back to the original comment to which I responded, it is likely that one's forward stroke can decelerate before impact with the cueball. That was the comment and the only point of contention.

If you need some reading material, I suggest you read the BD article on the Jacksonville Project at:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/jax_bd150.pdf

Please do a search on "deceleration. I will quote the pertinent paragraph.

"...De Jager had a theory that the most
English can be imparted if the cue tip is
actually accelerating at the moment of
contact. Jewett doubted that a human
being can accomplish that. Years of
debate ended in about an hour when we
tried the experiment. No matter how
anyone stroked, the best we could do
was to have the cue stick move at constant
speed for the last few inches
before it hits the ball. In fact, unless a
very good stroke is used, the stick actually
decelerates on the way in."

End of that point, yes?

Fred

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 07:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave and <font color="blue">Qtec</font color>:</font><hr> I've read other comments on depth perception and I still don't understand how it is relevant. I once met an awesome pool player who was blind in one eye (i.e., not much depth perception there), and he was deadly accurate. Ever since then, I've wondered if depth perception is really important. <font color="blue"> I dont think it is, at least not for aiming purposes. </font color> Logically, I think it should not be important, because aiming involves visualizing a straight line from the CB to the OB (or more precisely, the desired ghost ball center). It does not matter how far away the OB is, the line is still the same. How does depth perception help with visualizing the aiming line? And wouldn't depth perception be better if you were closer to the balls and not farther away? <font color="blue"> Yes. </font color> Actually, by being farther away, maybe there is less depth perception <font color="blue"> Yes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color> (and more importantly, less parallax). Is that why the pros stand farther back? (I haven't actually noticed that they do, but I will be looking for that also.) A better solution might be to wear a patch over one eye. (I am partly joking but party serious here.) Then the whole dominant eye issue (and parallax) will be a moot point. <font color="blue"> That all depends on the question. </font color> Maybe I'll try that later today. Does one really need depth perception in pool? <font color="blue"> No, but it does help. </font color>

Now, depth perception might help with "seeing the angle" of the shot (i.e., seeing the line from the OB to the pocket), but a one-eyed person could simply walk behind the OB to first visualize this line to establish the necessary aiming line. But I can see how depth perception might help a player "see" both the aiming line (from the CB to the OB) and the impact line (from the OB to the target pocket) from the stance, provided the stance is high enough. Now I'm really confused. Isn't a low stance better for aiming line accuracy? <font color="blue">Yes. </font color> And should we be trying to "see" the impact line while in the stance? I don't think so. <font color="blue"> Dave, the most easily missed shots are the ones when you shoot into a blind pocket. ie, you cant see the 'impact line'because the pocket is out of sight.In theory, we dont need to see the impact line, but in reality, we all use it to check that we are hitting the right spot on the OB.</font color><hr /></blockquote>
Qtec,

I think I agree with all of your responses. Although, I think that even "in theory" you need to see the impact line to be able to visualize the ghost ball target. However, I think this should be done before you get down into your stance, especially for back cuts where it is very difficult to visualize the aiming line from the shooting stance (even with great depth perception).

Regards,
Dave

DickLeonard
06-07-2005, 07:18 AM
Fran I have to agree with you I seen Efren shooting a close shot with a long bridge on Tape. You could hear the double hit but the ref didn't call it and the player didn't either.####

Fred Agnir
06-07-2005, 07:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Logically, I think it should not be important, because aiming involves visualizing a straight line from the CB to the OB (or more precisely, the desired ghost ball center). <hr /></blockquote>I don't think this is logically true at all for 3-dimensional aiming. Even if you are aiming to a centerball point of a ghost ball, you have to see it in space, a very 3D endeavor. Even marskmen without a scope use both eyes for aiming.

If what you say is true, then you would find that good players would naturally find that closing one eye helps them aim better. But, that doesn't happen. This is a two-eyed sport. The 1/2 blind man would probably trounce himself if he had both eyes working.

The world is replete with exceptions and overcoming of adversity.

I think in short, a longer bridge helps people see more of the shot. A lot goes on in the brain as to how to process the information and output whatever it needs to in the body. Some people will benefit seeing more of the shot.

Fred

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 07:29 AM
Fred,

Thanks for the clarification, the link, and the quote. I'm sorry I missed that paragraph when I scanned through the articles. Concerning "the best we could do was to have the cue stick move at constant speed for the last few inches before it hits the ball," I still think it is possible to accelerate into the ball, especially with a power stroke. If others and I fail to produce a natural accelerating power stroke during my next high-speed video session, I will concede to your argument; otherwise, I still respectfully disagree. Concerning "In fact, unless a very good stroke is used, the stick actually decelerates on the way in," I have no problem believing that a poor stroke can decelerate before contact.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I still think it is easy to accelerate (or at least not slow the cue stick) past the vertical forearm position. <hr /></blockquote>Dr. Dave, I will now have to accuse of either poor reading comprehension or not reading your own post. Whether or not you think it is easy to accelerate past the vertical forearm position was not the point of contention. Therefore, bringing it up not only confuses the original contention, your point is moot.

That being said, back to the original comment to which I responded, it is likely that one's forward stroke can decelerate before impact with the cueball. That was the comment and the only point of contention.

If you need some reading material, I suggest you read the BD article on the Jacksonville Project at:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/jax_bd150.pdf

Please do a search on "deceleration. I will quote the pertinent paragraph.

"...De Jager had a theory that the most
English can be imparted if the cue tip is
actually accelerating at the moment of
contact. Jewett doubted that a human
being can accomplish that. Years of
debate ended in about an hour when we
tried the experiment. No matter how
anyone stroked, the best we could do
was to have the cue stick move at constant
speed for the last few inches
before it hits the ball. In fact, unless a
very good stroke is used, the stick actually
decelerates on the way in."

End of that point, yes?

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
06-07-2005, 07:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
I've read other comments on depth perception and I still don't understand how it is relevant. I once met an awesome pool player who was blind in one eye (i.e., not much depth perception there), and he was deadly accurate. Ever since then, I've wondered if depth perception is really important. Logically, I think it should not be important, because aiming involves visualizing a straight line from the CB to the OB (or more precisely, the desired ghost ball center). It does not matter how far away the OB is, the line is still the same. How does depth perception help with visualizing the aiming line? And wouldn't depth perception be better if you were closer to the balls and not farther away? Actually, by being farther away, maybe there is less depth perception (and more importantly, less parallax). Is that why the pros stand farther back? (I haven't actually noticed that they do, but I will be looking for that also.) A better solution might be to wear a patch over one eye. (I am partly joking but party serious here.) Then the whole dominant eye issue (and parallax) will be a moot point. Maybe I'll try that later today. Does one really need depth perception in pool?

Now, depth perception might help with "seeing the angle" of the shot (i.e., seeing the line from the OB to the pocket), but a one-eyed person could simply walk behind the OB to first visualize this line to establish the necessary aiming line. But I can see how depth perception might help a player "see" both the aiming line (from the CB to the OB) and the impact line (from the OB to the target pocket) from the stance, provided the stance is high enough. Now I'm really confused. Isn't a low stance better for aiming line accuracy? And should we be trying to "see" the impact line while in the stance? I don't think so.

I know you might not have the answers, but maybe you or others have some insight to share. Has anybody tried the eye patch idea?

Thanks again,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dr Dave,

Given the points you've made, how would you theorize the reasons for the patterns of better players standing lower with longer bridge lengths and standing higher with shorter bridge lengths? Also factor in those players who say they do that because they "see the shot better that way." What are they actually seeing better?

Fran

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 07:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Has anybody tried the eye patch idea?<hr /></blockquote>
FYI, here's a response I got by e-mail:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote e-mail response:</font><hr>Yes&lt; I have tried the one eye patch because I have experienced missing shots under pressure. I read that vision is the first sense to diminish under pressure(can't remember where I read this---15 year ago). I took it one step further because I thought the eye had to become accustomed to this. I kept one eye closed for much of the day for several weeks doing daily tasks and in shooting pool. My shot making ability greatly increased and I shoot this way all the time. Shooting left handed or one handed I use both eyes. Not that I am a great player but I ran over 100 in straight pool many times and 7 racks in 9 ball(only to fail to make one on the break in the 8th rack). I have since developed an aiming method based on using one eye---and it works.
I didn't reply to your thread because I didn't think it fit in the current thread and didn't need the aggravation of others' comments. If you would like more information--let me know. By the way, I have great respect for your posts.<hr /></blockquote>

Fred Agnir
06-07-2005, 07:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> If others and I fail to produce a natural accelerating power stroke during my next high-speed video session, I will concede to your argument; otherwise, I still respectfully disagree. Concerning "In fact, unless a very good stroke is used, the stick actually decelerates on the way in," I have no problem believing that a poor stroke can decelerate before contact.
<hr /></blockquote>You do understand, don't you, that all the testers have far better strokes than what you have shown on your videos? And that de Jager is a World Artistic Billiard Champion?

It's not my argument. It's observation and reports from a study that included this very topic. Is there a reason why you wouldn't believe hardened video evidence from a group that already did the leg work and published its findings?

Fred

wolfdancer
06-07-2005, 07:35 AM
Interesting post.....

short_bridge
06-07-2005, 07:54 AM
hey guys! thanks for the responses! after days of researching, i found some interesting info. i asked two top filipino pros (lee van corteza &amp; dennis orcullo) about this. they said it is easier to slipstroke with the long bridge than the short bridge.

according to them, this combination of long bridge and slip stroking adds all the power that you need for all shots and for all kinds of cloth (especially slow house cloth).

Fran Crimi
06-07-2005, 08:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote short_bridge:</font><hr> hey guys! thanks for the responses! after days of researching, i found some interesting info. i asked two top filipino pros (lee van corteza &amp; dennis orcullo) about this. they said it is easier to slipstroke with the long bridge than the short bridge. according to them, this combination of long bridge and slip stroking adds all the power that you need for all shots and for all kinds of cloth (especially slow house cloth). <hr /></blockquote>

Hey that's really interesting. Thanks for the info. Are you sure they mean 'slip stroke' or are they just releasing the cue in the forward motion? A lot of players use the term 'slip stroke' the wrong way. It actually means letting the cue go on the way back, not forward. I've seen Filipino pros, such as Efren release the cue in the forward motion, but not on the way back.

Fran

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 08:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> If others and I fail to produce a natural accelerating power stroke during my next high-speed video session, I will concede to your argument; otherwise, I still respectfully disagree.<hr /></blockquote>It's not my argument. It's observation and reports from a study that included this very topic. Is there a reason why you wouldn't believe hardened video evidence from a group that already did the leg work and published its findings?<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

I believe what Bob reported, that the strokes performed by the players tested exhibited no acceleration at impact. However, I still stand by my claim that it is possible to accelerate into the ball, especially for a power stroke. Do you know if Bob tested a wide range of stroke styles and speeds? Maybe Bob can provide more info on this.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Fred, I honestly don't think this is worth arguing over. Does it really matter if there is slight acceleration of deceleration before impact? The only thing that really matters, for a power stroke, is cue tip speed at contact. Slight acceleration or deceleration fractions of a second before impact will not affect the speed very much. I call a truce on this topic and I will let you have the last word if you want to reply.

aco76
06-07-2005, 08:13 AM
1. Heavy influence from snooker

- long open bridges come into play with all those pauses...when you watch pool tapes of some 30 years ago, people used open bridge only for over the ball shots, etc...while nowdays players like Yang Ching Shun and some others who don't even have snooker background use open bridge on most of their shots...
- I predict that trend will continue...

2. Bridge hand doesn't get dirty
- with a very long bridge, your stroke doesn't have to be as long, therefore, your tip has much less chance of brushing your bridge fingers causing chalk dirt
- watch Pagulayan play...very long bridge, but stroke not as long most of the time



There are exceptions of course, but the bottom line is: long bridge just feels great for low stances. For more upright stances, I'd shorten the bridge length.

Fred Agnir
06-07-2005, 08:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I believe what Bob reported, that the strokes performed by the players tested exhibited no acceleration at impact. However, I still stand by my claim that it is possible to accelerate into the ball, especially for a power stroke. Do you know if Bob tested a wide range of stroke styles and speeds? Maybe Bob can provide more info on this.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure there is some kind of fancy terminology for this type of reasoning. Even though the proof is contrary to what you (or I) believe, it seems you want to try every way possible to find the one instance, if any, to say that you are right. What happens if in fact there is one set of circumstance that show acceleration prior to impact? Does that change your original statement? Would it be a surprise to you to know that there are a couple of other pesky people who asked the same questions you are asking (did they test the full range of shots, etc., etc.)?

[ QUOTE ]
Fred, I honestly don't think this is worth arguing over. Does it really matter if there is slight acceleration of deceleration before impact? <hr /></blockquote>

You tell me. You brought it up. Wouldn't you like to know if your premise (that deceleration is hardly likely before impact) is true or false. I brought up an answer to the contrary. You changed your original premise to something I wasn't addressing. It's obviously important enough to you since you decided to change around your premise rather than accept an answer to the contrary of your belief/intuition. I'm sure there's fancy terminology for that, too.


[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that really matters, for a power stroke, is cue tip speed at contact. Slight acceleration or deceleration fractions of a second before impact will not affect the speed very much. I call a truce on this topic and I will let you have the last word if you want to reply. <hr /></blockquote>If you think that all of this discussion is so that "I can have the last word," then you still haven't figured out what these boards are about. That's childish of you. I would think that for a "teacher" as yourself, a little new knowledge would be welcomed.

Fred &lt;~~~ could care less about who has the last word

Qtec
06-07-2005, 08:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And should we be trying to "see" the impact line while <font color="red"> in the stance?</font color> I don't think so. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Q.........So you dont have to be able to see the impact line. </font color>

I think I agree with all of your responses. Although, I think that even "in theory" you need to see the impact line to be able to visualize the ghost ball target. <font color="blue">So now you do? </font color> However, I think this should be done before you get down into your stance, especially for back cuts <font color="blue">ie, blind pocket shots. I,m sure I said that. </font color> where it is very difficult to visualize the aiming line from the shooting stance (even with great depth perception). <font color="blue">So now you dont have to see the impact line. I,m confused! </font color>

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

In theory, you dont have to be able to see the pocket, but it helps when target and pocket are in the same line vision.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 08:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Logically, I think it should not be important, because aiming involves visualizing a straight line from the CB to the OB (or more precisely, the desired ghost ball center). <font color="blue"> Dave, doesnt the aiming line extend THROUGH the OB and the QB? </font color> It does not matter how far away the OB is, the line is still the same. How does depth perception help with visualizing the aiming line? <hr /></blockquote>

The aiming line extends from the center of the CB to the center of the ghost ball target necessary to create the required impact line. Assuming you have already visualized the required impact line and ghost ball target (see online video demos NV 3.1 and NV 3.2 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/normal_videos/index.html)), aligning the cue stick with the aiming line direction does not require depth perception. (In fact, the parallax created by binocular vision, even with a dominant eye, can make straight-line sighting difficult.) Now, some people might adjust their aim while in their stance based on their perception of the impact line or ghost ball target. In that case, depth perception would be helpful. However, I think it can be dangerous for many people to change their aiming line while low in their stance.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>The difference between short and long bridge is that the EYES are further away from the QB when you play with a longer bridge. This means that when you focus on the QB or OB, you will see more of the shaft [ie. a longer line ] and therefor its easier to line up the cue on the line on the shot.<hr /></blockquote>
This makes sense. Thank you for this insight.

This just made me realize that the height of a person can have a big impact on this discussion. Being tall (I'm 6'3"), I can have a very short bridge and still have my head far from the CB and see a lot of the cue stick. If a very short person has a short bridge and is low to the cue, they will see a lot less of the stick.

Thanks again for you insight,
Dave

Qtec
06-07-2005, 08:38 AM
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................

[ QUOTE ]
I have since developed an aiming method based on using one eye---and it works <hr /></blockquote>

Sounds like some spam is on the way Dave! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec........you dont believe that, do you?

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 09:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I call a truce on this topic and I will let you have the last word if you want to reply.<hr /></blockquote>If you think that all of this discussion is so that "I can have the last word," then you still haven't figured out what these boards are about. That's childish of you. I would think that for a "teacher" as yourself, a little new knowledge would be welcomed.<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

You are absolutely correct. My statement about the "last word" was childish and inappropriate. I wish I had censored it out before I hit the Send button. I regretted it as soon as I hit the Send button.

Respectfully,
Dave

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 09:54 AM
I agree with you that, like many things in pool, personal preference and comfort are very important factors. For more info on open vs. closed bridge, see a previous thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=176236&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JimS:</font><hr> When playing 9 ball I seldom use an open bridge. There are so many long shots and/or shots which require some power component, like strong follow or draw, that I've become habituated to the TIGHT closed loop and long bridge .... most of the time.

I doubt there's any sense in arguing which is "best", unless teaching a beginner. Too many variables and different strokes and it all boils down to opinion and personal preference that probably can't be documented one way or the other.

It seems to me that the bottom line is that it's "best" to be creative and adjust for each shot with preference going to the option with the least propensity for error. <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 10:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Given the points you've made, how would you theorize the reasons for the patterns of better players standing lower with longer bridge lengths and standing higher with shorter bridge lengths? Also factor in those players who say they do that because they "see the shot better that way." What are they actually seeing better?<hr /></blockquote>
Those are tough (and good) questions. But I was hoping to get answers, not more questions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Concerning why a longer bridge might be used for a lower stance, maybe some people prefer seeing more of the cue stick (see the bottom half of the other message (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=196168&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) dealing with this).

Concerning "seeing the shot" better. I assume this means both "seeing the angle" of the shot (i.e., visualizing the required impact line and cut angle) AND sighting along the aiming line. I believe that the aiming line (or the amount of ball-hit fraction, or the degree of cut, or however else one might describe it) should be established with confidence before a player settles into a low stance. (But maybe this is where we disagree?) The apparent purpose for a low stance (and maybe a longer bridge) is to better align the cue stick with the established aiming line. (But maybe some disagree on this point.) My point about depth perception is that I don't think it helps in aligning the cue stick with an already established aiming line or ghost ball target center. What do you and others think about this specific point?

Still seeking answers and understanding,
Dave

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 10:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
And should we be trying to "see" the impact line while <font color="red"> in the stance?</font color> I don't think so. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Q.........So you dont have to be able to see the impact line. </font color><hr /></blockquote>
I'm not sure you should be trying to "see the impact line" from a low stance. See the "seeing the shot" message (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=196192&amp;page =0&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=) for more detail.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 11:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote e-mail received by Dr. Dave:</font><hr>I have since developed an aiming method based on using one eye---and it works <hr /></blockquote>Qtec........you dont believe that, do you? <hr /></blockquote>
I didn't write it, I just passed it along. I admit that it sounds ludicrous that one eye would be better than two. But I think for certain purposes this might be true. Haven't you ever done the get-down-low-and-squint-one-eye thing before? I've certainly seen pros do it. Examples include making sure there is enough room for the CB to pass by an obstacle ball and visualizing a very thin cut. When using both eyes, the binocular vision parallax effect can sometimes be misleading.

Sometimes a single eye is better at seeing a straight line to a point. Fred wrote that marksmen use both eyes to aim when not using an optical sight [which is one "eye"], but I've seen many people close one eye when sighting a gun or rifle. (Maybe these people don't know what they are doing, but it seems to come natural to some.) And I'm not saying shooting pool is like shooting guns ... I'm just trying to make a point that two eyes aren't always better than one.

For a short answer to your question ... No, I don't think that using only one eye during all phases of aiming and executing a pool shot can be better than using two eyes. However, I still have questions about the best way to align the cue stick with an already established aiming line or target point (see the "seeing the shot" message (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=196192&amp;page =0&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=) for details).

Regards,
Dave

Fran Crimi
06-07-2005, 11:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Those are tough (and good) questions. But I was hoping to get answers, not more questions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue">In a way, by answering your questions with questions, I was hoping to lead you into discovering a correlation between standing low with a long bridge and standing higher with a short bridge. Find the common thread and I believe you've found your answer. </font color>

Concerning why a longer bridge might be used for a lower stance, maybe some people prefer seeing more of the cue stick (see the bottom half of the other message (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=196168&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) dealing with this).

<font color="blue"> I have thought of the possibility of seeing more of the cue stick for being the reason for standing low, however that doesn't correlate with standing higher with a short bridge length. This is why I think correlating the two is important. </font color>

The apparent purpose for a low stance (and maybe a longer bridge) is to better align the cue stick with the established aiming line.

<font color="blue">Not necessarily. Accurately seeing the distance between both balls is important in determining your desired stroke speed. </font color>

(But maybe some disagree on this point.) My point about depth perception is that I don't think it helps in aligning the cue stick with an already established aiming line or ghost ball target center. What do you and others think about this specific point?

<font color="blue">Even though the player may establish the contact points prior to stepping into the shot, the process of stepping into the shot is an imperfect process. There are always slight adjustments that will be made when the player settles down on the shot. There's a reevaluation process that takes place at that point, which I believe involves depth perception. </font color>



Still seeking answers and understanding,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Keep those wheels turning, Dr. Dave. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

Regards,
Fran

dr_dave
06-07-2005, 12:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Those are tough (and good) questions. But I was hoping to get answers, not more questions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue">In a way, by answering your questions with questions, I was hoping to lead you into discovering a correlation between standing low with a long bridge and standing higher with a short bridge. Find the common thread and I believe you've found your answer. </font color>
<font color="red">One common thread is that the distance between the head and cue ball doesn't change much. Is that your point ... that most pros like to be a certain distance from the cue ball, regardless of the stance height and bridge length? If so, what is your theory to explain why?</font color>

Concerning why a longer bridge might be used for a lower stance, maybe some people prefer seeing more of the cue stick (see the bottom half of the other message (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=196168&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) dealing with this).

<font color="blue"> I have thought of the possibility of seeing more of the cue stick for being the reason for standing low, however that doesn't correlate with standing higher with a short bridge length.</font color>
<font color="red"> I think it does correlate. When you are higher, you can see more of the cue stick without needing a long bridge.</font color>

My point about depth perception is that I don't think it helps in aligning the cue stick with an already established aiming line or ghost ball target center. What do you and others think about this specific point?

<font color="blue">Even though the player may establish the contact points prior to stepping into the shot, the process of stepping into the shot is an imperfect process. There are always slight adjustments that will be made when the player settles down on the shot. There's a reevaluation process that takes place at that point, which I believe involves depth perception.</font color>
<font color="red">Good answer. If a player is reevaluating the cut angle and aiming line while settling into the stance, the depth perception would most definitely help.</font color><hr /></blockquote>
Thanks again,
Dave

bsmutz
06-07-2005, 02:48 PM
I'm going to have to try this one eye thing. When I hold my thumb out at arm's length and try to cover something with it, I see two equally transparent versions of my thumb and can choose which one I want to cover an object with (no dominant eye?). I've noticed that when I am playing pool, I see kind of a ghost of an object ball sticking up behind the solid looking object ball. Sometimes when I am down on the shot and trying to determine the aim point, my eyes start shifting back and forth like my brain can't figure out which one to use for this task and I have found that I have to wait until they settle down before I shoot or I will miss. Maybe only using one eye will eliminate the dual image of the object ball and the eyeball shifting while lining up the shot. When I am shooting a gun, I always shut my left eye and aim with my right (I'm right handed). I'm no marksman but can usually hit what I'm aiming at. As far as depth perception is concerned, I know that I can still judge distance with one eye closed. The only deleterious affect seems to be when trying to touch something with one eye closed. It may take a couple of tries before I can make my finger touch the object. I'm not sure what kind of affect this would have on shooting pool, though. I'll let you know tomorrow after I've had a chance to try it.

SpiderMan
06-07-2005, 03:15 PM
I agree with that analysis, however we are talking about tip-contact error relative to that produced by a shorter bridge. If both techniques result in acceptably small error, then there can be advantages to the longer bridge:

1. Long-bridge acceleration doesn't need to be as high to reach the same tip speed (firm shots). Perhaps error at the back hand might actually be greater on some firm shots, if taken using a short bridge, because of the snappy acceleration required. Though the short bridge would divide down this increased error, I could still imagine a net loss in accuracy.

2. Level cue: Some players with large or inflexible hands have more trouble getting their bridge height down. Moving the fulcrum back would reduce the resulting "tilt" angle.

3. Sighting: I personally like being able to clearly see the "forward" portion of my shaft during warm-up strokes. I could imagine this being hindered if you have both a low stance and a short bridge.

Just a few "contrary" observations, one size may not fit all!

SpiderMan

Stretch
06-07-2005, 04:11 PM
Concerning depth perception. I agree this has no bearing on target and alignment. What i do see is it causeing problems with touch and control. Haveing a sense of the distance adds to the timeing of the shot. A lot can happen to the cueball on the way from a to b. Without good depth perception it will get away on ya, or your stroke won't be appropriate for the shot (like too hard or too soft). St.

Fran Crimi
06-07-2005, 08:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
One common thread is that the distance between the head and cue ball doesn't change much. Is that your point ... that most pros like to be a certain distance from the cue ball, regardless of the stance height and bridge length? If so, what is your theory to explain why?

<font color="blue">Right. To optimally see the space between both balls. </font color>


I think it does correlate. When you are higher, you can see more of the cue stick without needing a long bridge.

<font color="blue"> I don't think that's true. Your head is no longer immediately above the line of the shot, plus you'd have to do a lot of head bowing to look down at your cue from the higher perspective. </font color>


If a player is reevaluating the cut angle and aiming line while settling into the stance, the depth perception would most definitely help.

<font color="blue"> Right. I think that the reevaluation process takes place every time a player settles into a stance, thus making depth perception an issue. Also, don't forget about reevaluating the speed of the shot as well. </font color>

Regards,
Fran

nhp
06-08-2005, 01:04 AM
The question is the first post is if a longer stroke gives you more juice on the cueball am I correct?

It doesn't matter. For example, on the draw shot like you were talking about, a person who has mastered a short stroke can most likely achieve as much draw as a person with a long stroke. To draw the ball well, all you have to do is hit the cueball very low with an accurate hit and a straight stroke. If you can strike the cueball accurately and you have a straight stroke, you can do anything with the cueball. Bridge length doesn't mean anything on your ability to draw the ball. I am saying this provided of course someone is not trying to draw the length of the table with a 2 inch bridge, because that isn't gonna happen.

Here is the exact reason why that player told you to use a longer bridge. Momentum. With a longer stroke it is much easier to achieve the desired speed on a shot while staying smooth and not tensing up the muscles in your arm. People with short strokes who cannot draw the ball well is probably because they tense up their arm muscles to get the desired speed, because with the less distance to stroke, it feels like they can't get the proper momentum without muscling the cue.

The truth is, you have to master either one of those strokes, and by that I mean mastering the timing mainly. You can have a smooth, relaxed SHORT stroke that can juice up the cueball like crazy if you learn to stop muscling the cueball and perfect the timing. Same thing goes for a very long stroke. If you master the timing of that stroke, and make sure your forward stroke is straight, then you can juice the ball up like hell too. So remember this, a good powerful stroke consists of accuracy, timing (most important part IMO), a straight stroke, and no muscle tension. Get rid of muscles in your stroke and it's going to be real smooth.

dr_dave
06-08-2005, 11:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> I agree with that analysis, however we are talking about tip-contact error relative to that produced by a shorter bridge. If both techniques result in acceptably small error, then there can be advantages to the longer bridge:

1. Long-bridge acceleration doesn't need to be as high to reach the same tip speed (firm shots). Perhaps error at the back hand might actually be greater on some firm shots, if taken using a short bridge, because of the snappy acceleration required. Though the short bridge would divide down this increased error, I could still imagine a net loss in accuracy.

2. Level cue: Some players with large or inflexible hands have more trouble getting their bridge height down. Moving the fulcrum back would reduce the resulting "tilt" angle.

3. Sighting: I personally like being able to clearly see the "forward" portion of my shaft during warm-up strokes. I could imagine this being hindered if you have both a low stance and a short bridge.

Just a few "contrary" observations, one size may not fit all!<hr /></blockquote>
Spiderman,

That's an excellent summary of the advantages of a long bridge. Each item makes sense ... your postings usually do. I agree with your list, especially item 1, so I don't think they are "contrary" at all. In TP A.10 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-10.pdf), I was simply pointing out one disadvantage of a long bridge. BTW, I think another possible advantage is:

4. Some people feel more natural and comfortable with a longer bridge and stroke.

Like many things in pool, personal preference and comfort is often an important factor.

Regards,
Dave

SpiderMan
06-08-2005, 01:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> I agree with that analysis, however we are talking about tip-contact error relative to that produced by a shorter bridge. If both techniques result in acceptably small error, then there can be advantages to the longer bridge:

1. Long-bridge acceleration doesn't need to be as high to reach the same tip speed (firm shots). Perhaps error at the back hand might actually be greater on some firm shots, if taken using a short bridge, because of the snappy acceleration required. Though the short bridge would divide down this increased error, I could still imagine a net loss in accuracy.

2. Level cue: Some players with large or inflexible hands have more trouble getting their bridge height down. Moving the fulcrum back would reduce the resulting "tilt" angle.

3. Sighting: I personally like being able to clearly see the "forward" portion of my shaft during warm-up strokes. I could imagine this being hindered if you have both a low stance and a short bridge.

Just a few "contrary" observations, one size may not fit all!<hr /></blockquote>
Spiderman,

That's an excellent summary of the advantages of a long bridge. Each item makes sense ... your postings usually do. I agree with your list, especially item 1, so I don't think they are "contrary" at all. In TP A.10 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-10.pdf), I was simply pointing out one disadvantage of a long bridge. BTW, I think another possible advantage is:

4. Some people feel more natural and comfortable with a longer bridge and stroke.

Like many things in pool, personal preference and comfort is often an important factor.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

During the only pool lesson I've had, Scott Lee commented that my bridge was "a little long", but he didn't see any need to alter it. I do shorten it up for some shots, but my standard stroke was what he commented on.

SpiderMan

nhp
06-08-2005, 04:35 PM
Spiderman how long is your average bridge length? And what is considered really long? More than 14"?

ccrider
06-08-2005, 06:25 PM
Ralph Greenleaf taught 3 bridge lengths used to control the speed of the cue ball, 5-7-9, today in 9 ball you would add a 4th, 11". Your average shot should be 7 to 9", you will be more accurate and make more shots.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

short_bridge
06-08-2005, 08:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote short_bridge:</font><hr> hey guys! thanks for the responses! after days of researching, i found some interesting info. i asked two top filipino pros (lee van corteza &amp; dennis orcullo) about this. they said it is easier to slipstroke with the long bridge than the short bridge. according to them, this combination of long bridge and slip stroking adds all the power that you need for all shots and for all kinds of cloth (especially slow house cloth). <hr /></blockquote>

Hey that's really interesting. Thanks for the info. Are you sure they mean 'slip stroke' or are they just releasing the cue in the forward motion? A lot of players use the term 'slip stroke' the wrong way. It actually means letting the cue go on the way back, not forward. I've seen Filipino pros, such as Efren release the cue in the forward motion, but not on the way back.

Fran
<hr /></blockquote>


hi fran! they definitely said that their stroke is called slip stroke. i can say that they do throw the cue when they release it. something about making the the cue do all the work /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Fred Agnir
06-09-2005, 06:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Spiderman how long is your average bridge length? And what is considered really long? More than 14"? <hr /></blockquote> Mine is in the 11-13" range. It seems like players like Alex Pagulayan have bridge lengths 15" or more.

Fred

Qtec
06-09-2005, 07:35 AM
Do you really think players ,in general , know what their average bridge-length is?

If I have a long shot, I would have to say my BL would be, well over 12 ins. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
I only know this from seeing myself on video. Its not something I think about when I,m playing.[ thank goodness!] /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

SpiderMan
06-09-2005, 07:51 AM
I can't quantify that at the moment, because I've never put a ruler to myself. Maybe SPetty can "measure me" this weekend at PettyPoint when Dr Dave and I visit her. I suspect it's the sort of thing that you have to "forget about", like videotaping yourself, in order to get a candid and accurate result.

SpiderMan

dr_dave
06-09-2005, 08:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>Maybe SPetty can "measure me" this weekend at PettyPoint when Dr Dave and I visit her.<hr /></blockquote>
I'll bring a ruler. I'll also bring my slide rule in case we need to calculate anything. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

I'll also bring my 30-60-90 plastic triangle to make sure everybody's hand V-sign is well calibrated for application of the 30 degree rule (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=186845&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I look forward to meeting all of the Dallas CCBers.

Dave